# Now I really am pitting Lance Armstrong directly (And yes, he is doped) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 24, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728 "2004-07-24T22:00:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/101 "2004-07-27T21:51:59Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > Ummm, no, that’s the point. Millar never had hematocrit levels high enough to lead to his ejection from any race, at least none that I can find in reading a large number of articles on it. If a rider doesn’t fail the hematocrit “safety test” then the number isn’t reported. So what is Lance at now? 35? Not likely? 45? Probably. 49? Maybe. 50? You can be sure that Postal knows the exact number and uses (permitted) methods such as IV fluid or oral fluids to keep this number exactly where they want it to be for the tests. And yeah, if you have a hematocrit level of 50, you get ejected, no questions asked, although again, you don’t get suspended. Like you said, it’s only evidence of EPO, not definite proof. Oh, I “can be sure”, can I? Gee, that sounds awfully like another one of those blind assertions of unsupportable “fact”. The point was that Millar apparently tested several times with suspiciously elevated haematocrit levels, while Armstrong apparently has not. High levels are not a _sufficient_ indicator to prove drug use, but since they are the very mechanism by which the doping works, they would seem to be a _necessary_ indicator. In other words, not having high haematocrit levels is a pretty strong indicator that nothing fishy is going on. You’ll also note that I asked if anyone _knew_ the story on Millar’s and Armstrong’s relative crit levels. That you proceeded to wildly guess Armstrong’s and condemn him based on the results is no surprise. > [@](#): > > Nothing personal, but quotes like this sort of make me belive that you don’t totally understand what EPO is or does. Again, it is a naturally occuring hormone that your body releases at a certain level; it releases more to adapt to altitude etc. It is the hormone that tells bone marrow to produce red blood cells. Hematocrit is the percent of your blood volume made up of RBC’s. Its effects are cumulative, but not over six years. Yes, I am aware of this, and don’t quite see how it contradicts anything I said. By “doping for six years” I did not mean “taking drugs continuously for six years”, as ought to be obvious. I am perfectly aware that the drugs need to be taken for a certain period, and can then be stopped prior to competition, while still enjoying the benefits. My point was that Armstrong is, like the lot of them, tested at all sorts of times through the year and yet has still not been caught. Unless the testers are morons, it shouldn’t be too hard to figure out the window of doping opportunity and target some tests then, should it? ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/102 "2004-07-27T22:00:36Z")
Given what EPO does, and given that Lance trains constantly at high altitudes, training especially for this particular race, Lance does not need EPO, nor is EPO even remotely necessary to explain anything he has done. Claims that Lance takes EPO are based on no evidence, but merely personal vendettas. Threemae has avoided saying this, but the fact that Lance trains especially for the Tour de France actually makes it much more likely that he does not use EPO. The type of training Lance does gives similar benefits to takeing EPO, but with less long lasting effects. This means that, in order to compete without drugs, a cyclist would probably have to train for a specific race in order to get there at peak level and on par with those taking drugs. Which is exactly what Lance does. And, of course, he gets slagged for that too. It’s laughable, really. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/103 "2004-07-27T22:06:58Z")
Threemae, you can’t go making exceptions just because of the sport. It seems that you want to say that there can be virtually no excelling in sport without some form of drug use involved. There is no room for athleticism, skill, etc. The only proof that has been given is that he is better than the drug users and people say he has used drugs. The fact that he has never tested positive apparently proves nothing. Maybe those that take the drugs are trying to make up for what they are lacking. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/104 "2004-07-27T22:20:13Z")
FWIW, Karch Kiraly is still a dominant player in his field and he’s 43. Why? Because he trains hard AND he has that X factor of determination and grit which you can neither buy nor inject. You either have it or you don’t. SI ran an article on LA right before the Tour de France. He said that after 5 years of taking it on the chin, he’s starting to fight back against the people who claim he dopes. He also said that the anger helps spur him on and makes him even more determined to prove people wrong. The article also said that their new sponsor, Discovery Channel, has stipulated in the contract that LA has to do the TdF. So apparently he’s in for next year. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/105 "2004-07-28T04:27:41Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Right, and if making that accusation isn’t “turn[ing] this into something nationalistic”, then I don’t know what is. Really, I don’t. I truly cannot comprehend how you can accuse everyone backing Armstrong of being blind nationalists, and then turn around and accuse _them_ of introducing nationalism when they quite rightly point out that you are being unreasonable (to put it mildly). By “this” I meant _my_ views. I’m sorry, that probably wasn’t clear, although perhaps it should have been, in context. Lamar Mundane kept trying to suggest my views were nationalistic, even though I’d said several times that I thought the whole peleton probably doped _which peleton includes about 10 Aussies including one that won the green jersey_, a fact that Lamar the brainless seemed unable to comprehend. > [@](#): > > Basically, the evidence against Armstrong is so utterly far from conclusive that for you to accuse dissenters of doing so purely on the basis of nationality is pretty lazy. And yes, you started it. Point out the post where I’ve suggested the evidence against Armstrong _is_ conclusive. In fact, what I’ve said is that it points in one direction, and on balance I think the whole peleton (which obviously includes Armstrong) dopes. > [@Telemark](#): > > No, what I’m saying is you have a bunch of handwaving. Nothing “points to doping” in the whole mess, it just fails to exclude doping which isn’t remotely the same thing. Just evidence from his team soigneur, is all. That is not handwaving. > [@Dead Badger](#): > > Unless it’s presided over by Princhester and threemae, I guess, for whom even negative tests now seem to have positive evidentiary value. Fuck off. Neither of us have ever said this. You’re better than this shit, Dead Badger. > [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > You are good at spewing venom. > > You are very bad at answering direct questions. Ask me something relevant. Recently I have been trying (but not always succeeding) in my posts on these boards to avoid the temptation to answer back any crap that some idiot posts. If you don’t post something vaguely intelligent I’m just not going to respond meaningfully (tempting as it sometimes is to do so). > [@Lamar Mundane](#): > > Why is it not concievable that Armstrong is just a freak of nature? Look at Tiger Woods for comparison. He came along and smashed records (Masters by 12 strokes, US Open by 15) and dominated his sport like no one before him. He just was better and worked harder than anyone else. Now people have caught up because they adopted his training methods and mental toughness. > > He didn’t cheat, and nobody accused him of it. Why Armstrong? Why Armstrong indeed? Why do you continue in your self-delusion that I am only picking on him? > [@Harborwolf](#): > > Isn’t it possible that he a) outworks the others in between events making himself better prepared than the rest, b) is just better than the rest of them? Sure. That’s probably why he wins. Explain to me how this is relevant to whether or not he dopes, if one assumes the whole peleton does. > [@Sauron](#): > > **threemae** , have you ever heard the term “Occam’s razor”? Look into it. The situation is far too complex to be able to say what scenario has the least entities. If you look at BBF’s post, you will find that (assuming he’s right and he’s certainly the real authority around here) there’s no doubt that the peleton dopes, the only question is whether they dope with illegal substances. So there is an argument that you are proposing two entities: dope that helps go faster that the peleton takes, and dope that helps go faster that the peleton doesn’t take. I am suggesting there is one entity: dope that helps go faster that the peleton does take. I know that’s not the only way of cutting up the pie, but it is at the least a demonstration your suggest that Occam’s razor provides a _clear_ solution is bollocks. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/106 "2004-07-28T07:35:50Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > By “this” I meant _my_ views. I’m sorry, that probably wasn’t clear, although perhaps it should have been, in context. Lamar Mundane kept trying to suggest my views were nationalistic, even though I’d said several times that I thought the whole peleton probably doped _which peleton includes about 10 Aussies including one that won the green jersey_… Right, but you did start off the suggestion that those supporting Armstrong might only be doing so out of nationalistic fervour. I don’t think this is fair, given the sheer number of people here who are disagreeing with the OP quite strongly, and it exhibits a certain unwillingness to actually debate the facts (of which there are few, granted). > [@](#): > > Fuck off. Neither of us have ever said this. You’re better than this shit, Dead Badger. Okay, sorry; I’ll take that back. I do believe that you’re taking a very odd look at some of the evidence, though, and my remark was specifically prompted by this: > [@](#): > > So what you’re saying, Telemark, is that you are not willing to consider the available evidence ( **all of which, every single bit, points to doping** ) and are only willing to consider evidence of some unspecified greater level? Bolding mine. As **Brutus** pointed out, to make this statement you at the very least completely ignore six years of clean tests. Yes, Millar went without a full positive, but not for that long, and not being as frequently tested (if the claims about Armstrong being the most tested are true, and I’ve not seen them challenged). Basically, there is some probability of getting caught by drug tests, even if you’re good at avoiding them. Thus passing them for 6 years is most definitely evidence against Armstrong doping. Do some back of the envelope maths; let’s say that a good doper knows how to avoid drug tests with 95% reliability. He’s tested three times a year (I have no idea of the true figure, this seems like an absolute lower limit). In 6 years he’ll be tested 18 times, and the probability of him getting caught catapults to 60%. Armstrong has been tested many more times than this, and has apparently not even shown a _suspicious_ crit level. I don’t understand how someone can consider this to be no evidence at all. You might think it’s of less value than the word of someone who claims she threw away some needles, but it sure as hell is evidence pointing to Armstrong’s innocence. And what’s more, it’s the _only_ evidence that isn’t hearsay. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/107 "2004-07-28T10:18:02Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Basically, there is some probability of getting caught by drug tests, even if you’re good at avoiding them. Thus passing them for 6 years is most definitely evidence against Armstrong doping. > > Do some back of the envelope maths; let’s say that a good doper knows how to avoid drug tests with 95% reliability [\*\*Princhester comments: but I’m a good Doper, well OK maybe only fair to middling, and I don’t know jack about how to do this;)]. He’s tested three times a year (I have no idea of the true figure, this seems like an absolute lower limit). In 6 years he’ll be tested 18 times, and the probability of him getting caught catapults to 60%. Armstrong has been tested many more times than this, and has apparently not even shown a _suspicious_ crit level. I don’t understand how someone can consider this to be no evidence at all. You might think it’s of less value than the word of someone who claims she threw away some needles, but it sure as hell is evidence pointing to Armstrong’s innocence. Point taken. > [@](#): > > And what’s more, it’s the _only_ evidence that isn’t hearsay. But so what? You dismiss hearsay too easily. Even in a court of law there are so many exceptions to the rule against hearsay as to make it more of a sieve than a rule. And this isn’t a court of law, so the standards of admissable evidence are certainly low enough to count hearsay. Besides which, the soigneur’s evidence itself is direct, not hearsay. The reporting of it in a book is hearsay, but are you seriously suggesting the book misrepresents her? Don’t you think the soigneur would have been reported as denying the words attributed to her by now if she was significantly misrepresented? ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/108 "2004-07-28T10:51:43Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Besides which, the soigneur’s evidence itself is direct, not hearsay. The reporting of it in a book is hearsay, but are you seriously suggesting the book misrepresents her? Don’t you think the soigneur would have been reported as denying the words attributed to her by now if she was significantly misrepresented? I’m not denying that she made the claims, just saying that it’s her word against Armstrong’s, which is not the basis of a strong legal argument unless you can demonstrate that one of their testimonies is worth more than the other. Apart from which, she can’t testify to the fact that the syringes contained EPO; according to other posters ( **Boo Boo Foo** I think) there are plenty of legal supplements that cyclists could be taking by syringe that aren’t EPO. If I knew her, I might be able to make more of a judgment about whether she’s telling the truth or not. I don’t, though, and to me it doesn’t lend her much credibility that her remarks have only appeared in a book aimed at a market likely to appreciate such accusations. It also doesn’t help that she hasn’t subsequently gone to the authorities with the claims. Why not? I’m not saying she’s lying, I’m just saying I have no more reason to believe her than Armstrong, and less when you consider that Armstrong has his test record to back him up. And again, I’m not saying he definitely didn’t dope, I’m just saying it’s about as far as it gets from definite that he did, too. Hmm, perhaps if I try hard I can fit some more "I’m not saying… just saying"s in there… ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/109 "2004-07-28T12:25:35Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > I’m not denying that she made the claims, just saying that it’s her word against Armstrong’s, which is not the basis of a strong legal argument unless you can demonstrate that one of their testimonies is worth more than the other. One undoubtedly has strong motivation to lie. The other has none that I have heard of. > [@](#): > > It also doesn’t help that she hasn’t subsequently gone to the authorities with the claims. Why not? Already answered this. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/110 "2004-07-28T13:58:27Z")
Just to clarify Princhester, I’m not the one assuming that the entire peleton dopes. It seems to be you and threemae. Since those in the race have not tested positive, my assumption is that they are all clean. Sounds naive I know, but I’ve always been a bit of a rube. I’m just wondering why it is so hard to believe that ole LA is just the best. To my knowledge nobody has accused Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Jordan, Shaq, etc. of doping and yet they have pretty much owned their sports. Why not Lance? Oh, and the hearsay evidence would fail in court based on Lances passing of piss tests. That sort of stuff needs at least a shread of fact behind it, and none has been put forth yet. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/111 "2004-07-28T14:05:17Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Just evidence from his team soigneur, is all. That is not handwaving. You are correct. There is one piece of evidence that isn’t handwaving, but it is far from conclusive. If there were any hard evidence to back up her claim than I think people would be more inclined to support the allegations. But until that happens I think the testimony is rather weak evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Mullinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@Mullinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mullinator)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/112 "2004-07-28T15:59:14Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > The claim that LA just “works harder” annoys me becasue there is hardly a pro whose entire life isn’t a delicate balancing act between training and overtraining. In fact, according to Chris Carmichael, the biggest change in LA’s training this year has been to economize and minimize training, doing in 4 hours what used to be done in 6. There are certainly other pro’s that ride more than him, and it hasn’t seemed to directly correlate into results. > > I’m not arguing that Lance Armstrong doesn’t have the natural inclination to be an exceptional cyclist, but I don’t think it is reasonable to suggest that he has the natural ability to leap frog over the speed increases offered by doping. Training more doesn’t have a heck of a lot to do with riding fast on the tour or winning more. So, random Italian guy trains twice as long as Lance. Fantastic, but Lance’s abilities and skills are honed by spending half the time. Random Italian guy may be maximizing his abilities with insane hours on the bike, but his max is lower than Lance’s max. This has been quite the long thread, but to reference one of your points above, I have the following question. Are there proven speed increases created by doping? Yes, plenty of bikers have been caught doping, but was their speed markedly improved? And at the same time, plenty of bikers have improved their speeds, but is there any proof that they doped. And by proof, I mean something other than a baseless article in a magazine, an opposing teams complaint, or your own grand pronouncements about someone. Real proof with tests and numbers and stuff. ---
**Author:** ![theR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@theR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theR)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/113 "2004-07-28T16:43:07Z")
> [@Mullinator](#): > > Training more doesn’t have a heck of a lot to do with riding fast on the tour or winning more. So, random Italian guy trains twice as long as Lance. Fantastic, but Lance’s abilities and skills are honed by spending half the time. Random Italian guy may be maximizing his abilities with insane hours on the bike, but his max is lower than Lance’s max. His max what? The reason I ask is because training has everything to do with it. Every single rider in the tour can ride just as fast as Lance Armstrong rides, they just can’t do it for as long as he can (in general). That is where the training comes in. Sure, riders have maximum lung capacities and things like that, but the way you win long tours like the Tour de France is with fanatical training (and maybe dope). The notion that a rider could spend half as much time training and still win the Tour de France is pretty absurd in a race like this. The only thing that really matters (individually – teams are a whole different issue) once the riders meet a certain minimum threshold of ability is how conditioned the rider is. > [@](#): > > This has been quite the long thread, but to reference one of your points above, I have the following question. > Are there proven speed increases created by doping? Yes, plenty of bikers have been caught doping, but was their speed markedly improved? And at the same time, plenty of bikers have improved their speeds, but is there any proof that they doped. > > And by proof, I mean something other than a baseless article in a magazine, an opposing teams complaint, or your own grand pronouncements about someone. Real proof with tests and numbers and stuff. Once again, I have to ask what you mean. What do you mean by speed? The only thing that matters is his average speed (guy with the highest average speed will win), so I’ll assume that’s what we’re talking about. The way you increase average speed for a whole stage or race is by training more to get more aerobic capacity and endurance. One of the ways you can train more is by using banned substances that allow for faster recovery after training and/or one of the ways you can improve on race day is by using banned substances that increase the amount of oxygen the body can move in the blood. I believe there are definitely substances which are proven to do these things (EPO? HGH?), although I will have to ask someone else to produce any actual cites. ---
**Author:** ![Nightime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Nightime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nightime)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/114 "2004-07-28T20:55:49Z")
“But Emma O’Reilly, an Irish woman who worked as Armstrong’s “soigneur” - a combination masseur, physical therapist and assistant - also acknowledged in the book that she did not know what was in the syringes.” I’m not saying it isn’t evidence. Just not strong evidence, and even if it is true it is unclear _what_ it is evidence of. We already know that cyclists get various legal supplements in syringes. It could also have been something that is currently legal, but which Lance would not like people to know he uses. Then again, it is all speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/115 "2004-07-28T23:15:22Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I’m just wondering why it is so hard to believe that ole LA is just the best. To my knowledge nobody has accused Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Jordan, Shaq, etc. of doping and yet they have pretty much owned their sports. Why not Lance? Aaaaagh! [sound of dull thudding noise, such as would be made by Princhester hitting his head repeatedly on his desk] > [@](#): > > Oh, and the hearsay evidence would fail in court based on Lances passing of piss tests. That sort of stuff needs at least a shread of fact behind it, and none has been put forth yet. Nngghghghghg! [sound of single gunshot, as Princhester just can’t take the thought of repeating himself for the terminally obtuse, one more time] ---
**Author:** ![threemae](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f9b8f/32.png) [@threemae](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/threemae)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/116 "2004-07-29T02:03:55Z")
**Princh** , let’s face it. When people are using Tiger Woods to argue that Lance Armstrong isn’t doping becasue golf, just like cycling, is one of if not the most grueling, physically challenging sports in the world in which organized doping is an unfortunately integral part of the modern PGA circuit, well, we’re facing an uphill battle. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/117 "2004-07-29T02:06:48Z")
> [@threemae](#): > > **Princh** , let’s face it. When people are using Tiger Woods to argue that Lance Armstrong isn’t doping becasue golf, just like cycling, is one of if not the most grueling, physically challenging sports in the world in which organized doping is an unfortunately integral part of the modern PGA circuit, well, we’re facing an uphill battle. …speaking of the terminally obtuse… ---
**Author:** ![Albert\_Rose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Albert\_Rose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Albert_Rose)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/118 "2004-07-29T02:07:48Z")
Holy crap, I just read the thread title. Lance is doped? When did we find this out? Crap, crap, crap. I thought he was clean. I wonder what Dan Patrick’s show will be about tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/119 "2004-07-29T03:06:03Z")
So threemae, ya pick tiger woods and the pga out of the posts and avoid my posts entirely. Very nice. I’m not trying to say that the tour de france isn’t grueling, but the NHL ain’t really a cakewalk either especially the playoffs. Martin St.Louis and Vincent Lecavalier had great runs as did several others. Must be all doped up :rolleyes: Princhester and threemae, the only refutation of all of LA’s clean drug tests seems to be that he is on “better dope.” The only evidence you seem to have is that people say he is on dope and that he beats those on dope. Instead of finding better evidence, all you do is repeat yourselves and call us terminally obtuse. As groundskeeper Willie was heard to say “Och, is that the best ye can do?” ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728/120 "2004-07-29T03:25:41Z")
John Edward: “OK I’m getting someone whose name starts with P. He says he’s not going to cross over for a bunch of strawman and an ostrich, and someone who hasn’t thought of any relevant questions yet. I don’t know what he means by that, but maybe someone in the audience…?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/now-i-really-am-pitting-lance-armstrong-directly-and-yes-he-is-doped/256728.md?page=7)